Calculating CO
2avoidance costs of Carbon Capture and Storage from industry
Simon Roussanalya,*
aSINTEF Energy Research, Sem Sælandsvei 11, NO-7465 Trondheim, Norway
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 47441763; fax: +47 735 97 250; E-mail address: simon.roussanaly@sintef.no
This is an author generated post-print of the article "Roussanaly, S., 2019. Calculating CO2 avoidance costs of Carbon Capture and Storage from industry. Carbon Management, 1-8." Copyright 2019 Published by Taylor & Francis Online. The final publication is available at
https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2018.1553435.
Abstract
This work discusses methods for calculating the CO2 avoidance cost for Carbon Capture and Storage from the non-power generation industry. Unlike the power generation sector, three calculation methods are often used to evaluate the CO2 avoidance cost in the case of CCS from industrial sources. However, each of these methods relies on different assumptions of which potential users are not always aware.
The links between these three methods are here presented and verified over an illustrative case to highlight the conditions that are required to ensure their reliable use, as well as their associated shortcomings. Finally, the basis to ensure the selection of the CO2 avoidance cost calculation method that is both valid and most efficient for cases considered by potential users are presented.
Keywords: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS); Industry; CO2 avoidance cost; Techno-economic;
Methodology.
Abbreviations: CCS, carbon capture and storage; CAPEX, capital expenditure; FCC, fluid catalytic cracker; OPEX, operating costs; TCR, total capital requirement.
NOMENCLATURE
Annual OPEXCCS implementation Additional annual operating cost related to CCS implementation ($/y)
D Discount rate (%)
i Year index (-)
(LCOE)CCS Levelised cost of electricity of the power plant with CCS ($/MWh) (LCOE)ref Levelised cost of electricity of the power plant without CCS ($/MWh)
(LCKM)CCS Levelised cost of key material(s) of the industrial plant with CCS ($ per unit of key material)
(LCKM)ref Levelised cost of key material(s) of the industrial plant without CCS ($ per unit of key material)
NPVCCS Net present value of costs of the industrial plant with CCS ($) NPVref Net present value of costs of the industrial plant without CCS ($)
(tCO2)CCS Annual amount of CO2 emissions of the industrial plant with CCS (tCO2/y) (tCO2)ref Annual amount of CO2 emissions of the industrial plant without CCS (tCO2/y) (tCO2/MWh)CCS CO2 emission intensity of the power plant with CCS per amount of energy
produced (tCO2/MWh)
(tCO2/MWh)ref CO2 emission intensity of the power plant without CCS per amount of energy produced (tCO2/MWh)
(tCO2/UKM)CCS CO2 emission intensity of the industrial plant with CCS per unit of key material (tCO2 per unit of key material)
(tCO2/UKM)ref CO2 emission intensity of the industrial plant without CCS per unit of key material (tCO2 per unit of key material)
TCRCCS implementation Total capital requirement linked with CCS implementation ($)
(UKM)CCS Annual amount of key material(s) produced or consumed by the industrial plant with CCS (unit of key material per year)
(UKM)ref Annual amount of key material(s) produced or consumed by the industrial plant without CCS (unit of key material per year)
1 INTRODUCTION
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) from power generation facilities in order to reduce the climate impact of the power sector has initially been the primary focus of CCS research in the last decades [1].
However, over the past decade, the interest in CCS from industry has greatly increased, and CCS is now regarded as an unavoidable measure to decarbonise (non-power generation) industry [2]. The industrial sector is responsible for roughly 21% of global greenhouse gases emissions [1]. Furthermore, several industries like cement, steel, refining and fertilizers produce significant CO2 emissions that are inherent to their operations and cannot be eliminated without CCS.
Compared to CCS from power generation, CCS from industry can benefit from several advantages.
First, as illustrated by Berstad et al. [3], industrial CO2 sources, such as cement, steel, hydrogen, may have high CO2 contents, and thus result in lower costs of CO2 capture. Secondly, in some cases, waste heat from the industrial plant itself can be used to reduce the energy and cost penalties of CO2 capture.
Furthermore, in comparison with power plants, whose electricity and CO2 emissions vary significantly throughout the year, industry tend to have a more stable productions over time, which enables high utilisation rates of the CCS infrastructure. Finally, although industrial CO2 emissions may be smaller, significant economies of scales in transport and storage can be achieved through industrial clusters. As a consequence of these advantages, eight of the ten CCS plants which have come into operation since 2013 deal with industrial emissions (natural gas processing, hydrogen, fertilizer, chemical, iron and steel). Finally, this focus has also been reflected through extensive research to implement energy- and cost-efficient CCS from industrial sources of emissions [4, 5].
However, in comparison with the power generation sector, it is worth noting that several methods have been used to evaluate the CO2 avoidance costs of CCS from industry*. These different methods have different advantages, but more importantly, they rely on different assumptions whose implications are not always explicit and understood by potential users. This can lead, in practice, to questions regarding the best method to calculate CO2 avoidance costs of CCS from industry. This work therefore presents each of the CO2 avoidance cost calculation methods, before discussing their respective necessary assumptions, limitations and advantages, as well as their comparison over an illustrative case. Finally, the basis to ensure the selection of the CO2 avoidance cost calculation method that is both valid and most efficient for cases considered by potential users are presented.
2 METHODS FOR CALCULATING CO2 AVOIDANCE COST
Before describing the different methods used to calculate the CO2 avoidance cost of CCS from industry, it is important to remember the only method used in the case of CCS from the power generation industry. In this case, the CO2 avoidance cost is calculated based on the cost and CO2 emission intensity of the electricity generated with and without CCS as shown in Equation 1 and previously defined by the IPCC [6]. This method is derived from the equalisation of the net present values of costs of the power plant with and without CCS.
CO2 avoidance cost = (t (LCOE)CCS − (LCOE)ref
CO2/MWh)ref − (tCO2/MWh)CCS (1) Where:
• (LCOE)ref is the levelised cost of electricity of the power plant without CCS
• (LCOE)CCS is the levelised cost of electricity of the power plant with CCS
• (t /MWh)
3
The first one, here referred as "exhaustive" method, is derived from the power generation calculation method. In this method, the CO2 avoidance cost is calculated based on the cost and CO2 emission intensity of the "key material(s)" of the industrial plant with and without CCS [4, 5] as shown in Equation 2. It is worth noting that in this case, the key materials may be the main product, the main input material of the plant, or even a combination of products. A list of example of "key materials"
which are commonly used for different industrial plants is presented in Table 1.
CO2 avoidance cost = (t(LCOKM)CCS − (LCOKM)ref
CO2⁄UKM)ref − (tCO2⁄UKM)CCS (2) Where:
• (LCOKM)ref is the levelised cost of the key material(s) of the industrial plant without CCS
• (LCOKM)CCS is the levelised cost of the key material(s) of the industrial plant with CCS
• (tCO2⁄UKM)ref is the CO2 emission intensity of the industrial plant without CCS per unit of key material(s)
• (tCO2⁄UKM)CCS is the CO2 emission intensity of the industrial plant with CCS per unit of key material(s)
Table 1: Key material commonly considered for the different types of industrial plant Type of industrial plant Commonly used key material (unit)
Cement plant Amount of cement produced (in tonnes of cement) Steel plant Amount of steel produced (in tonnes of steel) Refinery plant Amount of crude oil processed (in barrels of oil) Hydrogen plant Amount of hydrogen produced (in tonnes of hydrogen) Natural gas processing plant Amount of natural gas processed (in normal cubic meter)
The second and third methods, here referred as "net present value" and "annualisation" methods, are similar to the approaches normally used to evaluate a production cost, such as the cost of electricity, as shown in Equations 3 and 4. These methods are derived from the unit cost calculation based on the discounted cash flow of implementing CCS. Unlike the "exhaustive" method, these exclude the cost of the industrial plant in which CCS is to be implemented and are not directly linked to the key material produced or consumed by the plant. For these reasons, both of these methods have been especially used to evaluate CCS for retrofit applications without modification of the industrial plant production.
CO2 avoidance cost = Net Present Value of CCS implementation cost
∑Amount of CO2 emissions avoided by CCS implementation(𝑖𝑖) (1 + d)i
i
(3)
CO2 avoidance cost = Annualised investment due to CCS implementation + Annual operating cost due to CCS implementation Annual amount of CO2 emissions avoided
(4)
An overview of calculation methods selected by different studies is presented in Table 2 by type of industrial plant.
Table 2: Calculation methods used in different studies in function of the type of industrial plant Type of industrial plant
"Exhaustive" method "Net present
value" method "Annualisation" method Cement plant Roussanaly et al. [7]
IEAGHG [4]
Cormos and Cormos [8]
Jakobsen et al. [9]
Roussanaly and Anantharaman [10]
Ho et al. [11]
Steel plant IEAGHG [5] Ho et al. [11] Roussanaly and
Anantharaman [10]
Kuramochi et al. [12]
Refinery plant Fernández-Dacosta et al. [13] Ho et al. [11] Roussanaly and Anantharaman [10]
Anantharaman et al. [14]
Kuramochi et al. [12]
Hydrogen plant IEAGHG [15]
Lin et al. [16]
Riva et al. [17]
Natural gas processing plant
Grande et al. [18]
It is worth noting that in each of these three methods, the full CCS chain is here considered including CO2 capture, transport and storage. However, it is worth noting that in some of the literature these equations are also used considering only CO2 capture without CO2 transport and storage. If CO2
transport and storage is not included, the correct term for the cost metric calculation is cost of CO2
captured as highlighted by Rubin et al. [19].
3 ASSUMPTIONS, ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS BEHIND THE DIFFERENT CO2
AVOIDANCE COST CALCULATION METHODS
Although these three methods for calculating the CO2 avoidance cost appear to be significantly different, they are in fact linked. It is therefore important to understand the different assumptions that underlie each method, their respective advantages, and the limitations introduced by these assumptions.
Starting from the "exhaustive" calculation method, which is always valid, the "net present value"
method can be obtained mathematically as long as two conditions are satisfied. First, the production of the industrial plant must not be impacted by the implementation of CCS. In such a case, the
"exhaustive" calculation method can be simplified, as shown in Equations 5 to 8. Secondly, the additional costs and CO2 emissions avoided due to the CCS implementation can be assessed separately from the industrial plant costs, as shown in Equations 8 and 9. It is worth noting that the costs evaluated must take into account not only the costs directly associated with the CCS infrastructure but also costs such as utilities production and integration of CCS with the production of the industrial plant.
Nonetheless, it is essential to bear in mind that these two conditions may not be met in every case.
Indeed, certain combinations of CO2 capture technologies and industrial plants may result in changes in the production of the industrial plant. For example, the integration of calcium looping capture with a cement plant results in a cement production increase, and implementation of oxy-combustion capture on a fluid catalytic cracker (FCC) in a refinery results in higher conversion yield of the FCC unit.
5
CO2 avoidance cost = (t(LCOKM)CCS − (LCOKM)ref
CO2/UKM)ref − (tCO2/UKM)CCS (5)
CO2 avoidance cost =
NPVCCS ∑ �UKM�CCS
(1+d)i
i
− NPVref ∑�UKM�ref
(1+d)i i
∑ �tCO2�ref (1+d)i i ∑�UKM�ref
(1+d)i i
− ∑
�tCO2�CCS (1+d)i i ∑ �UKM�CCS
(1+d)i i
(6)
CO2 avoidance cost =
NPVCCS ∑ �UKM�ref
(1+d)i
i
− NPVref ∑ �UKM�ref
(1+d)i i
∑ �tCO2�ref (1+d)i i ∑�UKM�ref
(1+d)i i
− ∑
�tCO2�CCS (1+d)i i ∑ �UKM�ref
(1+d)i i
(7)
CO2 avoidance cost = NPVCCS − NPVref
∑i �tCO2(1+d)i�ref − ∑i �tCO2(1+d)i�CCS (8) CO2 avoidance cost = Net Present Value of CCS implementation cost
∑Annual amount of CO2 emissions avoided by CCS implementation(𝑖𝑖) (1 + d)i
i
(9)
Moreover, the "net present value" calculation method can be further simplified into the "annualisation"
one, as shown in equations 10 to 13, if the annual operating costs and amount of CO2 avoided are constant over the operating lifetime of the plant, as well as if the amount of CO2 emitted (directly or indirectly) during the construction period can be excluded or neglected.
Although the first assumption appears simple, it means that the ramp-up in operations that are expected in the first years of operation of CCS systems are excluded. In practice, start-ups of both industrial plants and CCS demonstration projects has shown that such ramp-up in operations can be significant, and thus can have a non-negligible effect on the CO2 avoidance cost. Furthermore, different CCS technologies can be expected to result in different ramp-up in operation due, for example, to different levels of integration with the industrial plant. Meanwhile, the second assumption is usually taken into account in the literature both for industrial and power plant cases, as the CO2 emissions associated with construction are complex to evaluate, uncertain, currently not included in CO2 emissions schemes and thus not financially valued. However, recent life cycle assessments of low climate impact technologies have shown that the climate impact associated with materials and construction can have a significant impact on the effective global warming potential of a technology and should thus be included when evaluating such concepts [20, 21]. Thus, to provide a complete picture of the cost of avoided CO2
emissions by CCS, it is important to also take into account the CO2 emissions related to the construction of the CCS system through, for example, hybrid life cycle assessment [22-25]. Moreover, the CO2
emissions linked to the construction of such plant can be non-negligible and can vary significantly between CCS technologies, thus neglecting or excluding these emissions could also affect the comparison of CO2 avoidance cost between different technologies.
CO2 avoidance cost = ∑
TCRCCS implementation(i) + Annual OPEXCCS implementation(i) (1+d)i
i
∑Annual amount of CO2 emissions avoided by CCS implementation(i) (1 + d)i
i
(10)
CO2 avoidance cost = ∑
TCRCCS implementation(i) + Annual OPEXCCS implementation (1+d)i
i
∑Annual amount of CO2 emissions avoided by CCS implementation (1 + d)i
i
(11)
CO2 avoidance cost =
∑ TCRCCS implementation(i) (1+d)i i
∑ 1 (1+d)i
i + Annual OPEXCCS implementation
Annual amount of CO2 emissions avoided by CCS implementation (12) CO2 avoidance cost = Annualised investment due to CCS implementation + Annual operating cost due to CCS implementation
Annual amount of CO2 emissions avoided
(13)
Where the annualised investment due to CCS implementation is defined as follow:
Annualised investment due to CCS implementation = ∑
TCRCCS implementation(i) (1+d)i i
∑i (1+d)i1 (14)
Besides the limitations imposed by the assumptions that underlie each calculation method, it is also important to understand the advantages and drawbacks of each calculation method. As illustrated above, the "exhaustive" calculation method has the advantage of not relying on any of the above assumptions and being valid for all combinations of industrial plant and CCS technologies. However, this approach requires a significant amount of technical and cost data on the industrial plant considered, data that may not always be necessary to accurately evaluate the CO2 avoidance cost. Besides the significant amount of efforts and resources that may, in some cases, be unnecessarily spent on the detailed technical and cost assessments of the industrial plant, such approaches may result in low-quality data being used for certain part(s) of the industrial plant, thus reducing confidence in the CO2 avoidance cost estimated.
Meanwhile, the "net present value" and "annualisation" calculation methods do not require the evaluation of the entire industrial plant with and without CCS, but only the CCS system itself, plus the costs of integration and potential modifications of the plant. These approaches can thus significantly reduce the resources spent in collecting data and/or calculating of the industrial plant. However, the "net present value" and "annualisation" calculation methods also have shortcomings, as the assumptions discussed above need to be met for the cases considered in order to ensure the validity of these two methods.
4 ILLUSTRATION
This section aims to illustrate, through an example, that the three calculation methods result in the same estimated CO2 avoidance cost when the necessary assumptions are met. In order to do so, a case study is here considered. The case selected is based on previously published data [7] to ensure transparency and established estimates.
In this case, CO2 is captured from a cement plant using a post-combustion amine system. For the sake of the exercise considered here, the CCS costs presented in Roussanaly et al. [7] are considered to include the whole CCS chain although they represent only the CO2 capture and conditioning costs.
The key technical, cost and environmental data required for calculating the CO2 avoidance cost are presented in Table 3. Finally, the economic evaluations are performed considering a discount rate of 8%, an operating lifetime of 25 years, and the first year of operation 1 as reference year for net present
7
Table 3: Key technical, cost and environmental data of the considered case Cement plant
without CCS CCS implementation
solely Cement plant with CCS
Overnighted† CAPEX (M€) 217.6 125.0 342.6
Annual fixed OPEX (M€/y) 18.13 8.58 26.7
Annual variable OPEX (M€/y) 23.16 27.76 50.9
Annual cement production (Mtcement/y) 1.36 - 1.36
Annual CO2 emissions (MtCO2/y)
of the cement plant without CCS 0.89 - 0.09
captured and stored - 0.80 -
associated with CCS implementation - 0.22 0.22
of the cement plant with CCS - - 0.31
Annual CO2 emissions avoided
(MtCO2/y) - - 0.58
Following the requirements for validity of the three calculation methods, the following assumptions are met:
1) The considered CCS implementation is not expected to impact the cement production 2) The costs associated with CCS can be assessed separately from the cement plant costs
3) The cement production, and thus CO2 emissions without CCS, are assumed to be constant over the plant operating lifetime
4) The CO2 emissions associated with the construction period are excluded.
• Calculation method 1: "Exhaustive" method
Based on the data presented in Table 3, the levelised cost of cement with and without CCS is evaluated to respectively 80.68 and 45.35 €/tcement. Meanwhile, the CO2 emission intensity of the industrial plant with and without CCS is evaluated to respectively 0.2264 and 0.652 tCO2/tcement. Using these numbers, the CO2 avoidance cost evaluated with the "exhaustive" method is 83.0 €/tCO2,avoided.
• Calculation method 2: "Net present value" method
Based on the data presented in Table 3, the net present value of CCS implementation costs is equal to 553.94 M€, while the net present value of avoided CO2 emissions is equal to 6.673 MtCO2,avoided. Using these numbers, the "Net present value" method results in a CO2 avoidance cost of 83.0 €/tCO2,avoided.
• Calculation method 3: "Annualisation" method
Based on the data presented in Table 3, the annualised investments and annual operating costs due to CCS implementation are equal to 11.71 and 36.34 M€/y. Using these numbers and the annual amount of CO2 avoided by CCS implementation (0.579 MtCO2/y), the "annualisation" method results in a CO2
avoidance cost of 83.0 €/tCO2,avoided.
This case evaluation confirms that the three CO2 avoidance cost methods result in the same estimate when the necessary conditions of validity, identified in section 3, are met.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Three methods for calculation of CO2 avoidance costs are commonly used in the literature, however users are not always aware of their conditions of validity, nor of their advantages and drawbacks. The
"exhaustive" calculation method is similar to the CO2 avoidance calculation method used in the power
†An overnight CAPEX corresponds to the total CAPEX taking also into account the effect of the capital expenditure allocation associated with construction schedule.
generation industry. This method has the strongest domain of validity but requires the complete assessment and evaluation of the industrial plant considered both with and without CCS. However, in certain cases, the assessment and evaluation of the industrial plant may not be necessary, which would reduce the effort and resources required for accurate evaluation of the CO2 avoidance cost. The "net present value" and "annualisation" calculation methods require significantly less effort to assess and evaluate the industrial plant and can therefore be more efficient. However these approaches also come with significant limitations that are not always understood by users, and shall thus be used carefully. For example, the implementation of CCS must not impact the production of the industrial plant, which may not be applicable for certain combinations of CCS technologies and industrial plants. In view of these elements, it is therefore recommended to use Table 2 in order to ensure the selection of the CO2
avoidance cost calculation method which is both valid and the most efficient for the cases considered by potential users.
Finally, beyond the specific cost issue considered in this work, it is also important to realise that, despite recent efforts to establish common CCS cost guidelines [19, 26], several methodological issues around cost evaluation of CCS (evaluation of low-TRL technologies [27], impact of data uncertainties [28], utilities cost [7], etc.) remain and should be further investigated.
Table 4: Summary of assumptions, advantages and drawbacks of each CO2 avoidance cost calculation methods
Calculation method "Exhaustive" "Net present
value" "Annualisation"
Equation number 2 3 4
Necessary assumptions for validity
Production of industrial plant not affected by CCS implementation - Yes Yes Additional costs and CO2 emissions avoided due to CCS
implementation can be assessed separately - Yes Yes
Annual operating costs and CO2 emissions avoided must be
constant over project duration - - Yes
CO2 emissions linked to construction can be neglected or excluded - - Yes
Advantage(s)/Drawback(s) of the method
Always valid Yes No No
Valid for all combinations of CCS technologies and industrial plant Yes No No Requires limited technical data concerning the industrial plant
considered No Yes Yes
Does no require cost estimates for the industrial plant considered No Yes Yes ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This publication has been produced with support from the NCCS Centre, performed under the Norwegian research program Centres for Environment-friendly Energy Research (FME). The authors acknowledge the following partners for their contributions: Aker Solutions, ANSALDO Energia, CoorsTek Membrane Sciences, Gassco, KROHNE, Larvik Shipping, Norcem, Norwegian Oil and Gas, Quad Geometrics, Shell, Statoil, TOTAL, and the Research Council of Norway (257579/E20).
The author wishes to thank Rahul Anantharaman, Amy Brunsvold, Lily Gray, Alan Reid, Stanley Santos, and Mari Voldsund for their valuable comments and discussions.
9
[6] B. Metz, O. Davidson, H.D. Coninck, M. Loos, L. Meyer, Carbon Dioxide Capture And Storage:
IPCC Special Report, Cambridge University Press2005.
[7] S. Roussanaly, C. Fu, M. Voldsund, R. Anantharaman, M. Spinelli, M. Romano, Techno-economic Analysis of MEA CO2 Capture from a Cement Kiln – Impact of Steam Supply Scenario, Energy Procedia 114 (2017) 6229-6239.
[8] A.-M. Cormos, C.-C. Cormos, Reducing the carbon footprint of cement industry by post-combustion CO2 capture: Techno-economic and environmental assessment of a CCS project in Romania, Chemical Engineering Research and Design 123 (2017) 230-239.
[9] J. Jakobsen, S. Roussanaly, R. Anantharaman, A techno-economic case study of CO2 capture, transport and storage chain from a cement plant in Norway, Journal of Cleaner Production 144 (2017) 523-539.
[10] S. Roussanaly, R. Anantharaman, Cost-optimal CO2 capture ratio for membrane-based capture from different CO2 sources, Chemical Engineering Journal.
[11] M.T. Ho, G.W. Allinson, D.E. Wiley, Comparison of MEA capture cost for low CO2 emissions sources in Australia, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 5 (2011) 49-60.
[12] T. Kuramochi, A. Ramírez, W. Turkenburg, A. Faaij, Comparative assessment of CO2 capture technologies for carbon-intensive industrial processes, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 38 (2012) 87-112.
[13] C. Fernández-Dacosta, M. van der Spek, C.R. Hung, G.D. Oregionni, R. Skagestad, P. Parihar, D.T. Gokak, A.H. Strømman, A. Ramirez, Prospective techno-economic and environmental assessment of carbon capture at a refinery and CO2 utilisation in polyol synthesis, Journal of CO2 Utilization 21 (2017) 405-422.
[14] IEAGHG, Retrofitting CO2 capture from refineries, Report 2017-TR5, London, 2017.
[15] IEAGHG, Techno-economic evaluation of SMR based standalone (merchant) hydrogen plant with CCS. Report 2017-02., 2017.
[16] H. Lin, Z. He, Z. Sun, J. Kniep, A. Ng, R.W. Baker, T.C. Merkel, CO2-selective membranes for hydrogen production and CO2 capture – Part II: Techno-economic analysis, Journal of Membrane Science 493 (2015) 794-806.
[17] L. Riva, I. Martínez, M. Martini, F. Gallucci, M. van Sint Annaland, M.C. Romano, Techno- economic analysis of the Ca-Cu process integrated in hydrogen plants with CO2 capture, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (2018).
[18] C. Grande, S. Roussanaly, R. Anantharaman, K. Lindqvist, CO2 Capture in Natural Gas Production by Adsorption Processes for CO2 Storage, EOR and EGR, in: IEAGHG (Ed.), 2016.
[19] E.S. Rubin, C. Short, G. Booras, J. Davison, C. Ekstrom, M. Matuszewski, S. McCoy, A proposed methodology for CO2 capture and storage cost estimates, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 17 (2013) 488-503.
[20] T.R. Hawkins, B. Singh, G. Majeau-Bettez, A.H. Strømman, Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles, Journal of Industrial Ecology 17 (2013) 53- 64.
[21] A. Arvesen, E.G. Hertwich, Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of wind power: A review of present knowledge and research needs, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16 (2012) 5994-6006.
[22] J.P. Jakobsen, S. Roussanaly, M.J. Mølnvik, G. Tangen, A standardized Approach to Multi-criteria Assessment of CCS Chains, Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2765-2774.
[23] S. Roussanaly, A.L. Brunsvold, E.S. Hognes, J.P. Jakobsen, X. Zhang, Integrated Techno- economic and Environmental Assessment of an Amine-based Capture, Energy Procedia 37 (2013) 2453- 2461.
[24] S. Roussanaly, J.P. Jakobsen, E.H. Hognes, A.L. Brunsvold, Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: Part I—Onshore pipeline and shipping between two onshore areas, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 19 (2013) 584-594.
[25] S. Roussanaly, A.L. Brunsvold, E.S. Hognes, Benchmarking of CO2 transport technologies: Part II – Offshore pipeline and shipping to an offshore site, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 28 (2014) 283-299.
[26] M. Van Der Spek, S. Roussanaly, E. Rubin, Best practices and recent advances in CCS cost engineering and economic analysis, Submitted to International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control - GHGT-14 Special issue (2018).
[27] S. Roussanaly, M. Vitvarova, R. Anantharaman, D. Berstad, B. Hagen, J. Jakobsen, V. Novotny, G.
Skaugen, Cost comparison of technologies for pre-combustion CO2 capture from a lignite-fired IGCC, Submitted to Environmental Science and Technology (2018).
[28] M. van der Spek, A. Ramirez, A. Faaij, Challenges and uncertainties of ex ante techno-economic analysis of low TRL CO2 capture technology: Lessons from a case study of an NGCC with exhaust gas recycle and electric swing adsorption, Applied Energy 208 (2017) 920-934.
